Law  Lib 

tompLaw 

T 

Schl48re 

1907 


Californij 

egional 

acility 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


LAW  LIBRARY 


i»in  Library  Commission 
sttive  Reference  Department 
rative  Legislation  Bulletin 
NO  12 


THE    RECALL 


MARGARET  A.  SCHAFFNER 


MADISON.  WISCONSIN 
DECEMBER,  1907 


THE   RECALL 


MARGARET  A.  §CHAFFNER 


COMPARATIVE  LEGISLATION  BULLETIN— No  12— DECEMBER  1907 

Prepared  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Political  Science  De: 
partment  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin 


WISCONSIN   PEEK   LIBEAEY   COMMISSION 

LEGISLATIVE  REFEEENCE  DBP'T 

MADISON  Wis. 

19C7 


Wen 


CONTENTS 


Page 

REFERENCES .- 3 

METHODS  OF  ENACTMENT 5 

Municipal  Legislation 

State    Legislation 6 

LAWS  AND  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 7 

Foreign  Countries   7 

United  States   8 

SALIENT  FEATURES 17 

Scope  of  Recall 17 

Prohibition  of  Repeated  Recalls 18 

Procedure  for  Petition 18 

Removal   Election 20 

Tenure  of  Office   .  21 


REFERENCES 


DAVIS,  THOMAS  A.  The  recall  as  a  measure  of  control  by 
the  people.  National  Municipal  League,  Proceedings, 
1906,  p.  382-7. 

An  excel!?nt  account  of  the  recall. 

Des  Moines  plan  of  city  government.  Bulletin  of  the 
League  of  American  Municipalities,  July,  1907,  vol.  8, 
no.  1,  p.  17-25. 

Contains  the  recall  provisions  incorporated  in  Iowa.  Laws. 
10O7.  c.  4S,  providing  for  the'  commission  system  of  govern- 
ment, which  may  l>c  adopted  by  Iowa  cities  having  a  popula- 
tion of  -I.~i.ooo  or  more. 

FOLK,  JOSEPH  W.     Governor's  message  to  the  Missouri  Leg- 
islature, 44th  General  Assembly   (Extra  Session)   1907. 
Jefferson  City,  Mo.,  1907. 
Recall  of  dere'ict  officials,  p.  9-10. 

HAYXES,  JOHX  R.  The  recall  in  Los  Angeles.  Equity 
Series,  July,  1906,  vol.  9,  no.  3,  p.  4-6. 

Discusses  the  practical   working  of  the  recall. 

LAFOLLETTE,  ROBERT  M.     Governor's  message  to  the  Wiscon- 
sin Legislature,  47th  Regular  Session,  1905.     Madison, 
Wis.,  1905. 
Municipal  government,  p.  79-81. 

MECHEM,  FLOYD  R.  A  treatise  on  the  law  of  public  offices 
and  officers.  Chicago,  1890. 

For  a  general  discussion  of  tenure  of  office  and  a  statement 
of  the  fundamental  principles  underlying  the  right  of  recall, 
see  p.  445-67. 

PARKER,  ADEIXA  M.  How  Seattle  got  the  recall.  Pacific 
Monthly,  April,  1907,  vol.  17,  p.  455. 

An  excellent  account  of  the  practical  methods  used  in  secur- 
ing the  reca'l.  Also  contains  valuable  historical  and  critical 
data.  N 


THE  RECALL 

POMEBOY,  ELTWEED.     The  recall.     Arena,  July,  1906,  vol.  36, 
no.  200,  p.  45-6. 
Defines  the  recall. 

RUPPENTHAL,  J.  C.  Election  reforms:  the  trend  towards 
democracy.  American  Lawyer,  March,  1906,  vol.  14, 
no.  3,  p.  108-15. 

Contains  a  legal  discussion  of  the  progress  of  the  recall  in 
the.  United  States. 

WILCOX,  DELOS  F.  Local  government.  New  York  State  Li- 
brary. Review  of  Legislation,  1903,  p.  vl-v5.  Albany, 
N.  Y. 

Refers  to  the  adoption  of  the  recall  in   Los  Angeles. 

Local    government.     New   York    State   Library.    Re- 
view of  Legislation,  1905,  p.  195-6. 

Reviews    legislation    for    the    reca'l    enacted    in    the    United 

Sliiies   in    I'.HI.-,. 


METHODS  OF  ENACTMENT 


The  right  of  recall  is  the  power  to  remove  an  offi- 
cial at  an  election  held  upon  petition  of  a  specified 
percentage  of  the  qualified  electors.1 

If  the  incumbent  is  sustained  at  the  removal  elec- 
tion, he  continues  to  hold  office. 

The  enactment  of  provisions  for  the  recall  of  offi- 
cials has  been  secured  through  state  and  through  mu- 
nicipal legislation. 
Municipal  legislation2 

Freeholders'  charters.  The  recall  has  been  adopted 
in  a  number  of  cities  in  California  and  Washington 
under  the  general  constitutional  and  legislative  provi- 
sions for  the  framing  of  freeholders'  charters  by 
means  of  an  elected  board  of  freeholders. 

For  municipal  charters  which  incorporate  a  recall  pro- 
vision, see  San  Bernardino,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  960-1;  Santa 
Monica,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1047-8;  Alameda,  Cal.  Laws, 
1907,  p.  1101-3;  Long  Beach,  Cal.  1907,  p.  1230-33;  River- 
side, Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1345-7;  and  Everett,  Wash.,  Char- 
ter adopted  Nov.  26,  1907. 


1  Compare  the  provisions  for  Los  Angeles,  Cal.  Laws,  1903,  p. 
574-5;  Seattle,  Charter  Amendment  adopted  March  6,  1906;  Lewis- 
ton,  Id.  Laws,  1S07,  p.  358-60;  Des  Moines,  la.  Laws,  1907,  c.  48, 
sec.  18;  and  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p.  130-1. 

2  In  California,  charters  framed  by  boards  of  freeholders  and 
charter  amendments  secured  through  direct  initiative  petitions  must 
be  ratified  by  the  legislature  after  being  adopted  by  the  people,  but 
the  legislature  has  uniformly  ratified  such  charter  provisions.  In 
Washington,  freeholders'  charters  and  chartej-  amendments  need; 
not  be  referred  to  the  legislature. 


6  THE  RECALL 

Freeholders'  charter  amendments.  In  a  number  of 
cities  the  recall  has  been  secured  as  an  amendment  to 
freeholders'  charters  through  direct  initiative  petitions. 

The  recall  has  been  established  as  a  charter  amendment 
in  Los  Angeles,  Cal.  Laws,  1903,  p.  574-5;  San  Diego,  Cal. 
Laws,  1905,  p.  922-3;  Pasadena,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  1022-3; 
Fresno,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  1057-9;  Seattle,  "Wash.,  Charter 
Amendment  adopted  March  6,  1906;  and  San  Francisco, 
Cal.,  Charter  Amendment  adopted  Nov.  5,  1907. 

State  legislation 

General.  A  number  of  states  have  provided  for  the 
recall  through  general  legislation. 

For  recall  provisions  established  through  general  law, 
compare  the  legislation  of  la.  Laws,  1907,  c.  48,  sec.  18; 
S.  D.  Laws,  1907,  c.  86;  and  Wash.  Laws,  1907,  c.  241, 
sec.  15. 

Special.  Municipal  charters  and  charter  amend- 
ments incorporating  the-  recall  have  also  been  granted 

through  special  legislation. 

Compare  the  charter  provisions  of  Lewiston,  Id.  Laws, 
1907,  p.  358-60;  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p. 
130-1;  Denison,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p.  361-6;  and 
Dallas,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p.  621-2. 


THE  RECALL 


LAWS  AND  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 


Laws  relating  to  the  recall  are  of  recent  date  in 
the  United  States.  However,  the  principle  underlying 
the  institution  was  recognized  in  America  before  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  when  the  delegates  to 
the  Continental  Congress  from  Pennsylvania  were  re- 
called because  they  refused  to  sign  the  'Declaration 
of  Independence  and  other  delegates  were  sent  in 
their  stead. 

In  Switzerland  the  -right  to  recall  officials  seems  to 
have  been  exercised  in  some  of  the  Cantons  from  their 
earliest  development  of  representative  government, 
and  although  the  right  is  not  frequently  exercised  at 
the  present  time,  the  recall  is  a  recognized  institution 
in  local  government  in  about  one-third  of  the  Swiss 
Cantons. 

A  significant  recognition  of  the  principle  is  found 
in  the  development  of  representative  government  in 
England,  for  after  all,  the  recall  is  not  unlike  the 
British  system  by  which  Parliament  is  dissolved,  when 
the  members  go  back  to  the  people  and  a  new  Parlia- 
ment is  elected. 

Foreign  countries 

Switzerland.  The  recall  exists  in  a  number  of  Can- 
tons in  Switzerland.  Typical  provisions  may  be  found 
in  the  laws  of  Aargau,  Basel-Landschaft,  Berne,  and 
SchafThausen. 


THE  RECALL 

Aargau.  Cantonal  Constitution,  1885,  art.  29. 
"When  5,000  qualified  electors  request  the  recall  of  the 
Great  Council  in  law.ful  manner,  the  Executive  Coun- 
cil must  put  the  demand  of  the  people  to  vote.  If 
the  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  declare  them- 
selves for  the  recall,  the  Great  Council  must  be  en- 
tirely renewed.  The  newly  elected  Great  Council  is 
to  complete  the  term  of  the  one  which  was  recalled. 

Basel-Landschaft.  Cantonal  Constitution,  1892,  art. 
29.  The  recall  of  officials  may  take  place  only  in  the 
legally  prescribed  forms. 

Berne.  Law  of  February  20,  1851.  Provides  the 
procedure  for  the  recall  of  officials. 

Also  see  the  provisions  of  the  Cantonal  Constitution, 
1893,  art.  16,  and  of  the  Law  of  October  29,  1899,  sec.  3. 

Schaffhausen.  Law  of  October  1,  1904,  art.  67-9 
and  art.  80-2.  All  demands  for  carrying  out  the  popu- 
lar right  of  recall  must  be  presented  to  the  Executive 
Council  in  the  form  of  written  petitions,  signed  by  at 
least  1,000  qualified  voters  of  the  Canton. 

United  States 

California.  The  recall  has  been  adopted  by  a  num- 
ber of  cities  having  the  right  to  adopt  freeholders' 
charters  and  charter  amendments. 

Const.  1879-,  art.  11,  sec.  8  (amended  1906).  Un- 
der this  section  any  city  having  a  population  of  3,500 
or  more,  may  adopt  a  freeholders'  charter  subject  to 
the  approval  of  the  legislature.  An  amendment  to 
the  charter  must  be  submitted  to  the  people  on  peti- 
tion of  15%  of  the  electors,  and  if  adopted,  must  be 
submitted  to  the  legislature  for  approval  or  rejection. 


THE  RECALL  9 

Const.  1879,  art.  20,  sec.  16  (amended  1906).  "In 
the  case  of  any  officer  or  employee  of  any  muncipal- 
ity  governed  under  a  legally  adopted  charter,  the  pro- 
visions of  such  charter  with  reference  to  the  tenure  of 
office  or  the  dismissal  from  office  of  any  such  officer 
or  employee  shall  control." 

Los  Angeles.  Charter  Amendment,3  Cal.  Laws, 
1903,  p.  574-5.  The  holder  of  any  elective  office  may 
be  removed  at  any  time  by  the  electors  qualified  to 
vote  for  a  successor  of  the  incumbent.  The  procedure 
to  effect  the  removal  is  as  follows:  The  petition  de- 
manding an  election  of  a  successor  of  the  person 
sought  to  be  removed  must  be  signed  by  25%  of  the 
qualified  electors,  must  contain  a  general  statement  of 
the  grounds  for  which  the  removal  is  sought,  and 
must  be  filed  with  the  city  clerk.  The  required  per- 
centage of  signers  is  to  be  based  upon  the'  entire  vote 
cast  at  the  last  preceding  general '  municipal  election 
for  all  candidates  for  the  office  the  incumbent  of  which 
is  sought  to  be  removed.  The  signatures  to  the  peti- 
tion need  not  all  be  appended  to  one  paper,  but  each 
signer  must  add  to  his  signature  his  place' of  residence, 
giving  the  street  and  number.  One  of  the '  signers  of 
each  paper  is  required  to  make  oath  before  an  officer 
competent  to  administer  oaths,  that  the  statements 
therein  made  are  true,  and  that  the  signatures  are 
genuine.  Within  ten  days  from  the  date  of  filing  the 

8  The  Los  Angeles  amendment  Is  so  like  the  Cantona'  law  of 
Schaffhausen.  Switzerland,  that  It  seems  to  have  been  modelled 
after  the  system  developed  In  that  Canton.  The  recall  law  en- 
acted in  Schaffhausen.  Nov.  16,  1876.  was  replaced  by  a  new  re- 
vision of  Oct.  1.  1904. 


10  THE  RECALL 

petition  the  city  clerk  must  examine  the  great  register 
and  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  petition  is  signed  by 
the  requisite  number  of  qualified  electors.  Jf  neces- 
sary, the  council  must  allow  him  extra  help  for  that 
purpose.  The  city  clerk  must  attach  his  certificate  to 
the  petition  showing  the  result  of  the  examination.  If 
the  petition  is  shown  to  be  insufficient,  it  may  be 
amended  within  ten  days.  Within  ten  days  after 
amendment  the  clerk  must  make  like  examination  of 
the  amended  petition,  and  if  it  is  still  insufficient,  it 
is  to  be  returned  to  the  person  filing  the  same,  with- 
out prejudice,  however,  to  the  filing  of  a  new  peti- 
tion to  the  same  effect.  If  the  petition  is  shown  to  be 
sufficient,  the  clerk  must  submit  the  same  to  the  coun- 
cil without  delay.  If  the  petition  is  found  to  be  suffi- 
cient, the  city  council  must  order  and  fix  a  date  for 
holding  the  election,  not  less  than  thirty  days  nor  more 
tlian  forty  days  from  the  date  of  the  clerk's  certificate 
to  the  council  that  a  sufficient  petition  is  filed.  The 
city  council  is  required  to  provide  for  publication  of 
notice,  and  all  arrangements  for  holding  the  election ; 
and  the  same  is  to  be  conducted  and  returned  in  all 
respects  as  other  city  elections.  The  successor  of  any 
officer  so  removed  is  to  hold  office  during  the  unex- 
pired  term  of  his  predecessor.  Any  person  sought  to 
be  removed  may  be  a  candidate  to  succeeed  himself, 
and.  unless  he  requests  otherwise  in  writing,  the  clerk 
is  required  to  place  his  name  on  the  official  ballot 
without  nomination.  In  any  removal  election  the  can- 
didate receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  is  to  be 
declared  elected.  Unless  the  incumbent  (receives  the 


THE  RECALL  11 

highest  number  of  votes,  he  is  deemed  to  be  removed 
from  the  office  upon  qualification  of  his  successor.  In 
case  the  party  who  receives  the  highest  number  of 
votes  fails  to  qualify  within  ten  days  after  receiving 
notification  of  election,  the  office  is  to  be  deemed  va- 
cant. 

The  names  of  the  petitioners  must  be  on  the  great  regis- 
ter and  ascertained  by  the  clerk  to  be  there,  otherwise  they 
are  not  qualified  signers  of  the  petition.  Affidavits  of  reg- 
istration are  not  a  part  of  the  great  register.  Davenport 
v.  City  of  Los  Angeles,  et  al.,  1905,  146  Cal.  508. 

San  Diego.  Charter  Amendment,  Cal.  Laws,  1905, 
p.  922-3.  The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to 
that  of  Los  Angeles. 

The  act  of  the  city  council  in  accepting  the  petition  for 
the  recall  of  a  councilman  is  merely  ministerial.  When  a 
petition  bears  the  proper  number  of  names  of  electors,  as 
shown  by  the  clerk's  certificate,  no  discretion  remains  with 
the  council,  but  it  is  its  duty  to  call  an  election.  Good  v. 
Common  Council  of  the  City  of  San  Diego,  1907,  90  P.  44. 

San  Bernardino.  Charter,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p. 
960-1.  The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los 
Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  is  at  least  30%. 

Pasadena.  Charter  Amendment,  Cal.  Laws,  1905, 
p.  1022—3.  The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to 
that  of  Los  Angeles. 

Fresno.  Charter  Amendment,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p. 
1057-9.  The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los 
Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  is  at  least  51%. 

Santa  Monica.  Charter,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1047- 
8.  The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los  Angeles, 
except  that  the  percentage  is  at  least  40%. 

Alameda.  Charter,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1101-3. 
The  recall  applies  to  appointive  as  well  as  elective  of- 


12  THE  RECALL 

ficers.  The  percentage  is  based  on  the  number  of 
votes  cast  for  mayor  at  the  last  preceding  general  mu- 
nicipal election.  Otherwise  the  procedure  is  similar 
to  that  of  Los  Angeles. 

Long  Beach.  Charter,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1230-33. 
The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los  Angeles,  ex- 
cept that  the  percentage  is  at  least  40%. 

Vallejo.  Charter  Amendment,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p. 
1253-4.  The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los 
Angeles. 

Riverside.  Charter.  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1345-7. 
The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to  that  of  Los 
Angeles. 

San  Francisco.  Charter  Amendment,  adopted  Nov. 
5,  1907.  The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to 
that  of  Los  Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  is  at 
least  30%. 

Idaho.  The  irecall  has  been  established  through 
special  legislation  providing  a  municipal  charter 
amendment  for  Lewiston. 

Lewiston.  Charter  Amendment,  Id.  Laws,  1907,  p. 
358-60.  The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to  that 
of  Los  Angeles,  with  the  following  modifications: 
The  cost  for  extra  help  for  the  examination  of  the 
petition  is  to  be  paid  by  the  petitioners,  who  are  re- 
quired to  deposit  the  sum  necessary  with  the  city 
clerk  at  the  time  of  filing  the  petition.  The  amount 
is  not  to  exceed  $100.00  and  any  surplus  is  to  be  re- 
turned to  the  persons  by  whom  the  money  is  deposited. 
No  petition  for  removal  may  be  filed  until  the  person 
sought  to  be  removed  shall  have  been  in  office  at  least 


THE  RECALL  13 

ninety  days,  and  no  person  may  be  required  to  stand 
for  reelection  more  than  once  during  the  term  for 
which  he  was  elected. 

Iowa.  Laws,  1907,  c.  48,  sec.  18.  The  recall  is 
provided  for  in  the  commission  plan  of  municipal 
government  established  by  general  law.  The  commis- 
sion system  may  be  adopted  by  cities  having  a  popu- 
lation of  or  exceeding  25,000  inhabitants.  The  pro- 
cedure for  the  removal  of  elective  officials  is  similar 
to  that  of  Los  Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  of 
qualified  electors  required  to  sign  the  petition  is 
based  on  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  all  candidates 
for  the  office  of  mayor  at  the  last  preceding  general 
municipal  election. 

Des  Moines  adopted  the  commission  plan  of  govern- 
ment, including  the  recall  provision,  at  a  special  elec- 
tion held  June  20,  1907. 

South  Dakota.  Laws,  1907,  c.  86.  The  recall  is  a 
provision  of  the  commission  form  of  municipal  gov- 
ernment established  by  general  law.  The  commission 
system  may  be  adopted  by  cities  of  the  first,  second, 
or  third  class,  or  by  those  having  special  charters. 

The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to  that  of 
Los  Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  required  is 
15%.  The  recall  applies  to  directors  of  the  board  of 
education  as  well  as  to  commissioners. 

Texas.  The  recall  is  provided  for  in  a  number  of 
municipal  charters  granted  by  special  legislation. 

Fort  Worth.  Charter,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p. 
130-1.  The  procedure  is  similar  to  that  of  Los  Ange- 
les, except  that  the  petition  for  removal  must  be 


14  THE  RECALL 

signed  by  a  least  20%  of  the  qualified  electors  of  the 
city.  Since  the  municipal  officers  are  elected  at  large 
under  the  commission  system  of  government  prevail- 
ing in  Fort  Worth,  the  required  percentage  is  based 
upon  the  entire  electorate  of  the  city. 

Denison.  Charter,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p. 
361-2,  and  366.  Provision  is  made  for  the  recall  of 
the  mayor  and  of  the  councilmen.  The  petition  for 
removal  must  be  signed  by  20%  of  the  qualified  voters 
of  the  city.  Within  twenty  days  from  the  date  of 
receiving  the  petition,  the  city  council  must  call  an 
election,  which  is  to  be  conducted  and  the  returns 
made  the  same  as  for  other  city  elections.  The  in- 
cumbent is  to  be  a  candidate  for  reelection.  The 
newly  elected  officer  is  to  qualify  for  the  office  as  pro- 
vided by  law. 

Dallas.  Charter,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p.  621- 
2.  The  procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to  that  of 
Los  Angeles,  except  that  the  percentage  required  is 
35%  :  and  since  the  municipal  officers  are  elected  at 
large,  this  percentage  is  based  on  the  entire  vote  cast 
for  candidates  for  the  office  of  mayor  on  the  final  bal- 
lot at  the  last  preceding  general  municipal  election. 
A  majority  of  all  votes  cast  at  the  election  is  neces- 
sary to  elect.  In  case  no  candidate  receives  a  major- 
ity at  the  first  election,  a  second  election  must  be  held. 

Washington.  The  recall  has  been  adopted  by  a 
number  of  cities  having  the  right  to  adopt  freeholders' 
charters  and  charter  amendments. 

Const.  1889.  art.  11.  sec.  10.  Under  this  section 
freeholders'  charters  may  be  adopted  by  cities  having 


a  population  of  20,000  or  more.  Such  charters  be- 
come the  organic  law  of  the  city  when  adopted  by  the 
municipal  electorate  and  need  not  be  referred  to  the 
legislature  for  enactment. 

Laws,  1903,  c.  186.  Any  municipality  having 
adopted  a  charter  under  the  laws  of  the  state,  may 
adopt  direct  amendments  to  the  city  charter  in  respect 
to  local  affairs.  Any  petition  for  a  proposed  amend- 
ment must  be  signed  by  15%  of  the  qualified  voters. 
The  required  percentage  is  to  be  based  on  the  total 
number  of  votes  cast  at  the  last  preceding  general 
municipal  election.  The  petition  must  be  filed  with 
the  city  clerk  thirty  days  or  more  before  the  election 
at  which  it  is  to  be  voted  upon.  If  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  local  electors  voting  upon  it,  the 
amendment  becomes  part  of  the  charter  organic  law 
governing  the  municipality. 

The  Seattle  charter  amendment  for-  the  recall  was 
adopted  under  this  law. 

Seattle.  Charter  Amendment,  adopted  Mar.  6, 
1906.  This  recall  provision  is  in  the  form  of  an 
amendment  to  that  part  of  the  city  charter  which  re- 
lates to  the  term  of  office  of  elective  officials.  The 
procedure  for  removal  is  similar  to  that  of  Los  Ange- 
les, except  that  any  person  competent  to  make  affida- 
vit may  circulate  petitions. 

Everett.  Charter,  adopted  Nov.  26,  1907.  This 
charter  incorporates  a  recall  provision  similar  to  that 
of  Seattle. 

The  recall  has  also  been  provided  for  cities  of  the 
second  class  through  general  legislation. 


16  THE  RECALL 

Laws,  1907,  c.  241,  sec.  15.  The  law  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  cities  of  the  second  class  incorporates  the 
following  provisions  for  the  recall  of  councilmen: 
Whenever  three-fifths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of 
any  ward,  as  shown  by  the  last  general  municipal 
election  returns,  shall  petition  for  the  recall  of  their 
councilman,  the  city  council  is  required  to  call  a  spe- 
cial election  in  the  ward  to  elect  a  councilman  to  take 
the  place  of  the  incumbent.  Thereupon  such  election 
must  be  held.  Should  the  councilman  whose  recall 
is  petitioned  for  be  defeated,  he  is  required  to  vacate 
his  office  for  the  balance  of  the  term  in  favor  of  the 
successful  candidate.  The  petition  for  recall  of  coun- 
cilmen must  be  signed  only  in  the  office  of  the  city 
clerk,  where  the  petition  must  be  kept  on  file  for  that 
purpose,  and  all  signatures  must  be  appended  within 
an  interval  of  ten  days. 


THE  RECALL  17 


SALIENT  FEATURES 


The  provisions  for  the  recall  are  very  similar  for 
the  different  cities  whether  secured  through  munici- 
pal or  through  state  legislation. 

Scope  of  recall 

Elective  officials.  Usually  the  law  provides  for  the 
removal  of  elective  officials. 

For  typical  provisions  for  the  removal  of  any  elective  offi- 
cer, compare  Los  Angeles,  Cal.  Laws,  1903,  p.  574-5;  San 
Diego,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  922-3;  San  Bernardino,  Cal. 
Laws,  1905,  p.  960-1;  Pasadena,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  1022-3; 
Fresno,  Cal.  Laws,  1905,  p.  1057-9;  Santa  Monica,  Cal. 
Laws,  1907,  p.  1047-8 ;  Long  Beach,  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1230- 
33;  Riverside,  Cal.  Laws  1907,  p.  1345-7;  Seattle,  Charter 
Amendment  adopted  March  6,  1906;  Lewiston,  Id.  Laws, 
1907,  p.  358-60;  Fort  Worth,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p. 
130-1;  Dallas,  Tex.  Special  Laws,  1907,  p.  621-2. 

Also  compare  the  general  provisions  for  la.  Laws,  1907, 
c.  48;  and  S.  D.  Laws,  1907,  c.  86. 

The  charter  provision  for  Denison,  Tex.  Special  Laws, 
1907,  p.  361-6,  specifically  mentions  the  mayor  and  the 
councilmen  as  subject  to  the  recall,  while  Wash.  Laws, 
1907,  c.  241,  sec.  15,  provides  for  the  recall  of  councilmen 
only. 

The  S.  D.  provision,  Laws,  1907,  c.  86,  specifically  in- 
cludes directors  of  boards  of  education. 

In  cities  where  the  recall  is  established  under  the  com- 
mission form  of  government,  provision  is  generally  made 
for  the  removal  of  the  commissioners  and  other  elective 
officials.  For  typical  cases,  compare  the  provisions  for  la. 
Laws,  1907,  c.  48,  sec.  18;  and  S.  D.  Laws,  1907,  c.  86. 

Appointive  officials.  In  certain  cases  the  law  also 
applies  to  the  holder  of  any  appointive  office. 

See  Cal.  Laws,  1907,  p.  1101-3,  for  the  charter  provision 
of  Alameda. 


18  THE  RECALL 

Prohibition  of  repeated  recalls 

The  possible  misuse  of  the  recall  is  provided  against 
by  the  requirement  that  no  petition  for  removal  be 
filed  until  the  person  sought  to  be  removed  has  been 
in  office  for  a  stated  period,  and  that  no  person  be 
required  to  stand  for  reelection  more  than  once  dur- 
ing the  term  for  which  he  was  elected. 

See  Id.  Laws,  1907,  p.  358-60. 

Procedure  for  petition 

Contents  of  petition.  It  is  generally  the  rule  that 
the  petition  must  include  a  demand  for  removal  and 
must  set  forth  the  grounds  for  which  the  removal  is 
sought. 

For  typical  cases,  compare  the  provisions  for  Los  An- 
geles,, Seattle,  Des  Moines,  and  Fort  Worth. 

.  Qualifications  of  signers.  Any  elector  qualified  to 
vote  for  a  successor  of  the  incumbent  may  sign  re- 
moval petitions. 

See  Davenport  v.  City  of  Los  Angeles,  et  al.,  1905,  146 
Cal.  508. 

Percentage  of  voters.  The  percentage  of  voters 
required  to  sign  petitions  ranges  from  15%  to  60%. 

The  percentages  are  15%  for  S.  D.  Laws,  1907,  c. 
86;  20%  for  Denison  and  Fort  Worth;  25%  for  Los 
Angeles,  Alameda,  Pasadena,  San  Diego,  Riverside,  Vallejo, 
Seattle,  Lewiston,  and  Des  Moines  (la.  Laws,  1907,  c.  48, 
sec.  18);  30%  for  San  Bernardino  and  San  Francisco; 
35%  for  Dallas;  40%  for  Long  Beach  and  Santa  Monica; 
51%  for  Fresno;  and  60%  for  second  class  cities  of  Wash. 
(Laws,  1907,  c.  241,  sec.  15). 

Basis  of  percentage.  The  required  percentage  of 
signers  is  usually  based  upon  the  entire  vote  cast  at 
the  last  preceding  general  municipal  election  for  all 


THE  RECALL  '19 

candidates  for  the  office  the  incumbent  of  which  is 
sought  to  be  removed. 

In  cities  in  which  municipal  officers  are  elected  at  large, 
the  percentage  is  frequently  based  upon  the  vote  cast  for 
all  candidates  for  the  office  of  mayor.  Compare  the  provi- 
sions for  la.  Laws,  1907,  c.  48,  sec.  18;  for  S.  D.  Laws,  1907, 
c.  86;  and  for  Fort  Worth,  Denison,  and  Dallas,  Tex.  Spe- 
cial Laws,  p.  130-1;  361-2,  366;  and  621-2. 

>  Verification  of  signatures.  Generally  the  signatures 
to  the  petition  need  not  all  be  appended  to  one  paper, 
but  each  signer  is  required  to  add  to  his  signature  his 
place  of  residence,  giving  the  street  and  number. 
Each  paper  must  be  certified  to  by  an  affidavit  to  the 
effect  that  the  statements  therein  made  are  true  and 
that  the  signatures  are  genuine. 

For  different  requirements  for  the  verification  of  signa- 
tures, see  the  provisions  for  Los  Angeles,  Cal.  Laws,  1903, 
p.  574-5;  Seattle  Charter  Amendment,  adopted,  March  6, 
1906;  and  Lewiston,  Id.  Laws,  1907,  p.  358-60. 

Filing.  Provision  is  generally  made  for  the  filing 
of  the  petition  with  some  designated  officer,  usually 
the  city  clerk. 

Examination.  Within  a  prescribed  time  the  proper 
officer  is  required  to  examine  the  petition  to  ascertain 
whether  it  is  signed  by  the  requisite  number  of  quali- 
fied electors. 

Time.     The  time  limit  is  usually  fixed  within  ten  days. 

Assistance.  Extra  help  must  be  allowed  if  necessary  for 
the  examination  of  the  petition.  Generally  the  extra  ex- 
pense is  paid  by  the  city.  Under  the  Idaho  law,  1907, 
p.  358-60,  the  cost  for  extra  help  must  be  paid  by  the  peti- 
tioners. 

Certificate  of  result.  The  city  clerk  or  other  designated 
official  must  attach  his  certificate  to  the  petition  showing 
the  result  of  the  examination. 

Amendment  of  petition.  If  the  petition  is  shown 
to  be  insufficient  it  mav  be  amended.  After  amend- 


20  THE  RECALL 

ment,  the  clerk  is  required  to  examine  the  amended 
petition,  and  if  it  is  still  insufficient,  it  is  to  be  re- 
turned to  the  person  filing  the  same,  without  preju- 
dice, however,  to  the  filing  of  a  new  petition  to  the 
same  effect. 

For  typical  cases,  compare  the  provisions  of  Los  Angeles, 
Seattle,  Lewiston,  Des  Moines,  and  Fort  Worth. 

Also  compare  the  provisions  of  Schaffhausen  (Switzer- 
land), Law  of  October  1,  1904. 

Transmission  of  petition  to  council.  If  the  petition 
is  shown  to  be  sufficient,  it  must  be  transmitted  to 
the  council  without  delay. 

This  provision  of  the  Los  Angeles  charter  has  been  gen- 
erally followed. 

Removal  election 

If  the  petition  is  sufficient,  the  municipal  council  is 
required  to  order  an  election. 

See  Good  v.  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  San  Diego, 
1907,  90  P.  44. 

Time.  Generally  the  date  for  holding  the  election 
is  to  be  fixed  by  the  council  within  a  specified  time 
from  the  date  of  the  certificate  that  a  sufficient  peti- 
tion is  filed. 

Usually  the  time  limit  is  fixed  at  not  less  than  thirty  nor 
more  than  forty  days. 

Candidates.  The  person  sought  to  be  removed  may 
be  a  candidate  to  succeed  himself,  and,  unless  he  re- 
quests otherwise  in  writing,  his  name  must  be  placed 
on  the  official  ballot  without  nomination. 

For  typical  cases,  compare  Los  Angeles,  Seattle,  Lewiston, 
Des  Moines,  and  Fort  Worth. 

Manner  of  conducting  election.  Recall  elections 
are  conducted,  returned,  and  the  results  thereof  de- 
clared, in  all  respects  as  are  other  city  elections. 


THE  RECALL  21 

Tenure  of  office 

Removal  of  incumbent.  Unless  the  incumbent  re- 
ceives the  highest  number  of  votes,  he  is  deemed  to 
be  removed  from  office  upon  the  qualification  of  his 
successor. 

Term  of  successor.  The  successor  of  any  officer  re- 
moved through  the  recall  is  to  hold  office  during  the 
unexpired  term  of  his  predecessor. 

Compare  the  provisions  in  Aargau,  Cantonal  Const.  1885, 
art.  29,  and  in  Schaffhausen,  Law  of  October  1,  1904.  Simi- 
lar provisions  are  found  in  Berne,  Law  of  February  20, 
1851. 

Vacancy  of  office.  In  case  the  party  who  receives 
the  highest  number  of  votes  fails  to  qualify  within  a 
prescrilxxl  time  after  receiving  notice  of  election,  the 
office  is  deemed  vacant,  and  is  to  be  filled  in  accor- 
dance with  the  general  law  for  filling  vacancies. 


Nc 
Nc 

N( 

N. 
N- 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 

N 


U  n  I  versify  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hltgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


